Faiyyaz vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9855 MP

                                                               1
                           IN       THE      HIGH       COURT OF MADHYA                       PRADESH
                                                          AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                    ON THE 30 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2299 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           FAIYYAZ S/O FARUKH ALI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O 23/1 CHINGIPURA RATLAM
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI DHARMENDRA KEHARWAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION STATION ROAD
                           RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                            (SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI
                            RITU RAJ BHATNAGAR - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)

                                This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
                                                                ORDER

The present appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence

dated 31.01.2023 passed by 2nd Additional Session Judge, Ratlam in ST No.142/2017. The appellant has been convicted under section 420, 467 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5-5 year with fine of Rs.5000/-

2. The appellant and the complainant have filed an application for compounding under section 320 read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C and also IA No.9338/2023 for permission to compound the same under section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. By order dated 28.06.2023, the matter was directed to be placed before the Principal Registrar of this court for verification of compromise. After Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 30/06/2023 5:48:34 PM

verification, a report was submitted that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. They have amicably settled their dispute with mutual consent.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits the offence under section 420 of IPC is compoundable but the offence under section 467 of IPC is non-compoundable under section 320 of IPC.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding was permitted in a non- compoundable offence. Relevant part of the order of the order reads as under :-

"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of o f f e n c e . They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ul ti ma te consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the High Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 30/06/2023 5:48:34 PM

may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment."

5. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab And Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated 27.03.2014 after relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2015 and the parties have arrived at a compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion and they have amicably resolved their disputes, I am of the view that no purpose would

be served in sending the appellant in jail therefore, the application for compounding is allowed in view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (s up ra). The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appellant if he is on bail, his bail bond stands discharged.

7. Apart from that, the parties have also agreed that the complainant shall be Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 30/06/2023 5:48:34 PM

free to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which has been deposited by the appellant in pursuant of the High Court order dated 08.01.2017 passed in M.Cr.C No.10769/2017 and the complainant shall also be entitled for Rs.15,500/- as awarded by the trial court. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

Sourabh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 30/06/2023 5:48:34 PM